I'm with Kazriko on this one. The general prinicple is that what you do outside of the company, as long as it stays outside, is none of the company's damn business. There are always details to be nuanced, of course, but abandoning this postulate legitimizes corporate fascism.

In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.

For the most part, our ancestors came to this country because they were tired of being peasants.

I'm with Kazriko on this one. The general prinicple is that what you do outside of the company, as long as it stays outside, is none of the company's damn business. There are always details to be nuanced, of course, but abandoning this postulate legitimizes corporate fascism.

Eh, I don't have a problem on company hiring practices being based on voluntary behaviors. In regards of the matter of being fat if I were to excercise some self control and only eat when my body tells me I'm hungry instead of whenever my anxieties tell me I need some comfort food then I could lose some weight.

Berken wrote:

In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.

Yet another instance of BEGGING for Godwin's law... I'll say it outright: Pick your favorite fascist regime. There are people who can get out and/or succeed within it. Does this mean it's not a bad regime?

In essence, it establishes a two-tiered society: owners, who can do what they please, and wage-earning peasants who can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Their lives are directed by the owners, for the good of the company and, of course, for their own good.

This heralds the creation of a two tiered society? Hardly.

It doesn't "herald," it establishes legal and social precedents. I do try to use exact language in these discussions.

There has been a see-saw legal battle going on over this version of the issue for decades, with corporate busy-bodies trying to find legal justifications for securing irrelevant worker medical records, requiring females to sign contracts swearing they won't get pregnant while working for the company, and various other odd and intrusive items.

Weird relevant tidbit: Gloria Steinem's first big break as a feminist leader came about when she went undercover and wrote a magazine article on the lives of Playboy bunnies. One of the things she revealed was that Playboy Inc. was requiring the bunnies, ostensibly hired as waitresses, to have a gynocological exam as part of the hiring process. Since no one at the corporation could provide an explanation (at least in public) as to why this was needed, the requirement was dropped.

As I noted above, any policy subversive of personal sovereignty has possible legal implications.

BBlalock wrote:

Berken wrote:

For the most part, our ancestors came to this country because they were tired of being peasants.

employee != peasant

employer != feudal lord

If you lived in the 19th century and couldn't distinguish among free laborors, peasants, peons, and slaves (American law does identify all these categories) then you probably would not have immigrated. The people who did go to the effort to immigrate almost universally took pride in living in a country without aristocrats. For example, when Oscar Wilde took a speaking tour of the United States c. 1900, he made the mistake of referring to his audience (in South Dakota, I believe) as "peasants" during the course of a speech. A riot broke out and he barely got out of town ahead of a lynch mob.

Yet another instance of BEGGING for Godwin's law... I'll say it outright: Pick your favorite fascist regime. There are people who can get out and/or succeed within it. Does this mean it's not a bad regime?

I don't happen to have a favorite fascist regime. B^(

No, of course the exceptions don't mean that it's not a bad regime.

Having not seen the movie I don't know how the protagonist managed to succeed.

If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

If he succeeded (for instance) by becoming so valuable to the program that the only choice the regime had was to knowingly submit to his ambitions then that's a win for the protagonist, and for freedom. In that case the government has demonstrated that it is susceptable to reason, and therefore not all that bad.

If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

He did, but they did allow such. You see, there was a bit of 'corruption' in the ranks, and the man who caught him was sympathetic. Of course, they may well have found out later but since the mission is expensive they couldn't recall it for the very reason our protagonist would have been held back: The mission is considered critical.

Now it's well possible they found out later, though the epilogue suggests otherwise, and everybody loses. They lose one of their most valuable employees, the protagonist loses his livelihood.

It just doesn't simplify down to "Either the regime won or it didn't."

If he did it by hiding the fact that he was had genetic defects then I would call that a win for the regime. They have not officially allowed thier rule to be broken..

He did, but they did allow such. You see, there was a bit of 'corruption' in the ranks, and the man who caught him was sympathetic. Of course, they may well have found out later but since the mission is expensive they couldn't recall it for the very reason our protagonist would have been held back: The mission is considered critical.

A rogue enforcer doesn't alter anything. If that's how the movie played out then there was no official sanction of the protagonist's actions.

Raif wrote:

Now it's well possible they found out later, though the epilogue suggests otherwise, and everybody loses. They lose one of their most valuable employees, the protagonist loses his livelihood.

It just doesn't simplify down to "Either the regime won or it didn't."

All one has to do is define a single criteria as a dividing line.

My single criteria for fascist regimes is whether the rules are subject to reason.

In this case the rules were not amended, even to allow for this specific instance, so the protagonist must live in fear the rest of his life.